Talk:Terrorist attacks on 24
Casualties Should we not change this to "Civilian casualties" and remove federal agents from the count? --proudhug 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC) : Do you think it'll work better if we don't include feds? Thief12 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure. Well, we don't include terrorists, so I figure the point is to indicate how many civilian casualties there are, since that's generally the target of a terrorist attack. But maybe I'm wrong. It just seems to me that there are a lot of CTU and FBI agents who tangentially died during terrorist attacks that aren't included here. --proudhug 03:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :But there are instances were the target is a federal building, like CTU. Besides, when casualty counts are given in the show (which is from where we try to get the info), I assume they are including agents as well. Thief12 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, so then we need to start thinking if people like Mark DeSalvo and Barbara Maccabee were victims of terrorist attacks. --proudhug 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :I would say no because Mark DeSalvo was killed during the Drazen's break-out of prison, which isn't necessarily a terrorist attack (hence it is not on the list) and the other woman was killed by Marie Warner, but not during a terrorist attack. Thief12 04:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC) So, even though someone is a direct casualty of the planned set-up, but just not the actual executed attack itself, they're not included? --proudhug 04:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :The intention is to list the direct casualties of the attack. If we were to include the ones that were killed during the planning process, then we would end up counting almost all the dead of each season. If we're referring to the attack, then what was the effect of said attack? "Well, it killed X people." Thief12 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :: I think we need to include all non-terrorist fatalities. As mentioned, sometimes feds were the intended targets. Also, the "attacks" should be WMD attacks or major shootouts or bombings. A few murders here and there don't meet the unspoken "magnitude" qualification. 02:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Okay, that make sense. I just figured that if I was running to city hall to plant a bomb and I had to shoot a civilian and a cop who got in my way on the way there, they'd be included in the attack count, despite not being planned targets of the attack. --proudhug 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) : I agree they would be included, like Carrie Bendis in the Sentox attack. 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC) So then what about people like Reza Naiyeer, Richards and Barbara Maccabee? --proudhug 23:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) : The intention of the page is to list terrorist attacks and the casualties directly related to it, not the amount of kills on the terrorist belt. If you look at any info about terrorist attacks (or any disaster) in any news or any place, you'll see the list of casualties directly related to the event. If I'm talking about a nuclear blast in Valencia and its effect, it bears little relation to it if the terrorist killed a guy on his way to pick up the bomb. Thief12 04:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC) So you wouldn't include Blue Rook's example of Carrie Bendis then? --proudhug 05:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :That would be debatable. Maybe yes, because she was killed at the moment of the attack by the same terrorist, right before the terrorist attack itself. Kinda like counting Martin Belkin among the casualties at the Flight 221 bombing. Then again, Carrie isn't even listed in the main article here about the attack. But anyway, including someone like Reza Naiyeer, Richards, etc. would be pushing it, IMO. Thief12 05:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC) I think we need to accept both examples or neither. Martin Belkin is a whole different thing since he specifically was the target. --proudhug 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC) :Then I'll go with neither, but if there's a consensus for including them, then I'm fine. Anyway, I don't think there are so many instances where we could have such an argument. Thief12 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC) "Fatalities" The term "casualty" in real life includes survivors with injuries. Our list is technically just "fatalities". Any objections to me changing the instances of the words casualty/ies to fatality/ies? 18:46, December 2, 2012 (UTC) :sounds sensible!--Acer4666 (talk) 18:51, December 2, 2012 (UTC) :Go ahead. Thief12 (talk) 01:21, December 3, 2012 (UTC) Uh.... Vladmir Bierko didn't escape the facility, he was arrested.... i should just probably just edit right away in stead of telling everyone when i make an edit, i love bragging about stuff that isn't really important.... - Gizm01 00:36 , 19 August 2009 Templates Can we not do away with the templates? There are only a handful of items in each table, so it won't make the page gigantic, but it will be easier for people to edit. --Proudhug 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) :That was my idea. Thief12 03:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Creation I don't know if people would like this list, but I think if we have lists of deaths and kills by Jack, I don't see why this one not. Moreover when the show deals with constant terrorism. Anyway, any advice or recommendation is welcome. I wanted to align to the left the parts of Purpose and Outcome in the boxes but couldn't do it. If anyone can help with that, you're welcome. Thief12 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) : I love it so far. And for those attacks which have pages of their own, we can right to them from here too. Very excellent work Thief. As for the align situation, I tried a few tricks, but none of it worked. Hopefully someone else has some input on that? 00:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, I thought about linking to it from those pages. I'll deal with that in awhile. Thief12 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ::: I'm really excited with the way this page is turning out! 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :::: Thanks! that's the idea. To make something that's informative about the show, but also enjoyable to read. I'll finish the two remaining templates tomorrow. Thief12 05:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Not to be a buzzkill, but "Terrorist attacks on 24" is a bit OOU don't you think? --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 10:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC) : It sounds like real life terrorist tried to attack 24 cos they didn't like it. :: It's an OOU page, like handguns on 24. Simon I can't tell if you're recommending deletion or just a move to a different title? 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :::It's just like Deaths on 24. Thief12 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :: I definitely wasn't recommending a deletion, I too think it's a brilliant page. Now I see your point about pages such as handguns/deaths on 24, I agree it's fine to leave it as it is. --SignorSimon (talk/ / ) 18:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) : I agree this page is brilliant. I can't believe no one came up with it before. --Proudhug 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Colors Currently, "unsuccessful" is red and "successful" is green. What if we flipped this scheme around? Green for "successful" makes it seem like it's good the attack succeeded. 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) :Good for the terrorists! :-D Nah, but I think it's ok to flip it. Thief12 01:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) :: But doesn't that violate NPOV? Kinda like using the term "villain"? I think a red "successful" would look even more weird. It's like saying success is a bad thing. --Proudhug 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::: What if I said that red for "successful" is more appropriate because a successful terrorist attack results in bloodshed? 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) EMP Not sure if we should include the EMP detonation among the terrorist attacks of Day 4. Thief12 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC) : Now that's a tough one. The EMP wasn't motivated by "terrorism"... more like corporate mischief. I'd say it can go in the section at the bottom to be safe. 19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::I thought that too. Thief12 19:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) David Palmer? How is David Palmer partially successful? That was there whole goal. You cannot count the target of the other people they were after like Michelle Dessler --Mstouffer 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, Palmer was the main target. But to make their plan succeed, they set out to kill four people (Palmer, Chloe, Tony and Michelle) to successfully frame Jack for it. And they didn't achieve the four kills nor the framing of Jack, so it was "partially successful". Thief12 10:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :: I agree with Thief. Because the framing of the murder failed, and they didn't get Chloe, it didn't succeed fully. 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :::And they didn't get Tony either; at least not with the bomb, as far as we knew then. Thief12 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC) CTU Attack victims in Season 5 Even though they mostly say that the Sentox killed 40% of the employees, Karen Hayes did mention a specific amount to Buchanan on Day 5 8:00pm-9:00pm. I saw the episode this weekend on local reruns, but don't remember if she said 53 or 56. If anyone that owns the DVD can verify that, it'll be great. Thief12 15:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Name change The terrorist attacks were in 24, not on 24. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by on 14:14, 2009 August 8 : I agree that your suggestion is the better/more accurate title. Does anyone else have any input before I go ahead with a page move? 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Day 8 terrorist attacks Ok, Noahcs, seems like we both thought of the same thing at the same time. I apologize. Anyway, I managed to merge what I had written with your edits. That said, I did delete two of your entries because they wouldn't classify as "terrorist attacks" per se. The first entry was only a hit on Victor Aruz while the second one was a hit on Farhad Hassan. Thief12 03:21, March 22, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry, I guess I got confused. The reason I included those two was because I saw the listings for "First Gentleman Henry Taylor" and "Wayne Palmer" on the past season's pages and assumes individual attacks were okay. Noahcs 03:31, March 22, 2010 (UTC) ::Attacks on Presidents are usually included (hence the inclusion of Hassan's threat). Henry Taylor's was included because it was part of a plan to intimidate Pres. Taylor and force her into retiring from Sangala. Thanks for the help though. I really didn't know we would step on each others toes. Thief12 03:35, March 22, 2010 (UTC) Meltdown in Season 4 Obviously it was never confirmed after the fact, but in episode 8, after Edgar wasn't able to stop 6 of the plants with the kill code, Curtis mentioned that without shutting down the plants, there would be 50,000 deaths/city. Thus it would be correct to change the "unknown" next to San Gabriel to "up to 50,000", and remove references to Fayed's nuke being the "most successful attack". :But the 6 nuclear plants didn't melt. That's why Jack and Curtis went to Rockland Building where Edgar instructed Curtis how to stop the other plants from melting. In the end, the one in San Gabriel Island was the only one that failed. Thief12 04:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC) It was my understanding that the 6 referred to San Gabriel + the 5 others that Curtis/Jack stopped by using the Dobson Override. I could be mistaken though. :That's it. First Edgar stopped almost a hundred plants from melting, leaving 6 in danger. Then, Jack and Curtis went to the Rockland Building to use the Dobson Override directly, and they stopped 5 of the remaining 6. The only one that melted was San Gabriel. Thief12 05:51, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Right, so when Curtis said 50,000 PER CITY in reference to those 6 in Episode 4.8, wouldn't that mean at least 50,000 died when San Gabriel went down? :No, Keeler asks Curtis what would be the casualty projections if ALL six plants melt down. Curtis simply replies "50,000 deaths in the first 24 hours". Thief12 03:27, June 21, 2010 (UTC)' I hate to be "that guy", but you're wrong. He says 50,000/city, and it's in a conversation with Driscoll, not Keeler. This is not only on wiki24's summary of 4.08, but also at another source, TelevisionWithoutPity http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/24/day_4_200_pm_300_pm.php?page=3 It was definitely projected to be 50,000 PER CITY, including San Gabriel. Anyone who has instant netflix can confirm it for you, as well. :Ok, I just saw that. But still, we don't have an accurate number. There were six plants melting down, some might've been on densely populated areas, other might not. So Curtis could've been throwing an average number out. This is not like the nuclear bomb in Valencia where the average number thrown out referred specifically to that location. Even the name of San Gabriel Island sounds like a small, not very populated place, which might've been the intention of the writers. Plus, some evacuation was actually carried out. So throwing out a "random" average number in the article might not be the most accurate road. What's everyone else's take on this? Thief12 02:03, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :: Evacuations were already underway. We can't put any number in there since even an estimate is completely unknown. We'd be guessing and throwing off the count big time. I say we stick with "unknown". 03:40, June 22, 2010 (UTC) Well that's fair, (1) those estimates accounted for evacuation and (2) in a later episode it was implied that the nuclear cloud would be blowing over the path of evacuation, so it's unlikely many people got out of there alive. While it is "unknown", it's likely to be well over a 1000, and in fact likely to be on the damage level of the nuclear detonation in Valencia (it's basically the same -- a nuclear meltdown in a potentially not highly populated place). While I understand you don't want to speculate, it's also speculation to have lines that suggest Fayed's attack was "easily" the most calamitous. Maybe, maybe not. The only direct evidence we have suggests that this meltdown was on par or worse. I suggest amending the "notes" for Fayed, Marwan, and Season 6 Episode 4 to reflect the fact that Fayed is either the most or second most "successful" mass murderer, for the sake of correctness. :You bring up an argument and suggest a change in an article and yet you go and do the change without waiting for the debate to begin. The thing is that there was a casualty estimate given IU for the Valencia bombing AFTER it happened, whereas the casualty estimate for the meltdown was given before the event even finished happening and, as we said before, it seemed more like an average number thrown out that might apply to any of the remaining six plants in danger. In the end of it all, there is still not an accurate estimate of casualties pertaining to the San Gabriel Island meltdown. If a reporter had been shown saying "the meltdown in SGI might cause 50,000 deaths or so" then that would be a different thing; but all we have is Curtis saying that the meltdowns COULD lead to "50,000 deaths per city". IMO, that's a very broad, blanket statement and not accurate enough. Plus, Fayed's note about being the show's "most successful murderer" states that they're including previous attacks, which might include the attacks prior to Day 6, which were said to have around 900 casualties Thief12 03:43, June 24, 2010 (UTC) I apologize for making the changes. Honestly, while I see the merit of "Curtis was just averaging it out", I also think that's a bit handwavy (admittedly the writing was ambiguous). Only because at the time, they had no way of knowing if they could stop individual meltdowns -- they just knew six were melting down and they had to stop them, presumably all at once. It would have made sense for Curtis to say "300,000 people will die" if the figure 50,000 is an average and not a city-specific estimate. Anyway, whatever, it's totally up to you. I feel there's enough ambiguity that, given what the writers gave us, my "edit" is the safest to actually being correct, but it's up to you guys. :I appreciate your contribution and is really a tough point to argue. But the ambiguity of it is why I think that leaving it as "Unknown" is the safest route. I'll make an effort to check the Season 4 episodes to see if there was any indication to a more accurate amount. Thief12 17:18, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Day 3 attacks I'd like to propose adding two more attacks to the Day 3 section: Firstly, the bombing of National Health Services, which was done to inspire terror and gain a foothold over the President. I see that the entire first half of Day 3 is in the not included section, but this specific bombing I believe qualifies as a terrorist attack. Secondly, the attack on the MI6 building, which took out "most of their personnel", and I see as no different to the attacks on CTU Los Angeles.--Acer4666 (talk) 13:44, January 17, 2012 (UTC) : Definitely the MI6 attack. But one question I wanted to ask about the NHS bomb: does it make any difference that it was actually part of Jack's sting operation? I'm undecided myself. 06:26, January 19, 2012 (UTC) :: I wouldn't say it does. Really, Hector Salazar wanted to get his brother out of jail, so Jack helped him commit a terrorist attack in order to gain trust and get undercover with him. Just as Jack helped gas the sunrise hills mall to get undercover with Ivan Erwich, or bomb CTU to get undercover with Joseph Wald.--Acer4666 (talk) 11:30, January 19, 2012 (UTC) : Well said. Since nobody else has said otherwise you can probably rock out with this. 20:50, January 19, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with both. Don't know why I missed them the first time. Thief12 21:39, January 19, 2012 (UTC) Attacks on CTU LA At the minute this page says that the Day 2 bombing of CTU was a "successful" attack, yet the Day 5 gassing was only "partially successful". Why the difference? I don't see how one was more effective than the other--Acer4666 (Talk) 08:11, January 23, 2017 (UTC) : Judging from the purpose/outcome sections and what I remember from those seasons, the rationale is that the Day 2 attack happened as it was intended and achieved its purpose, which was to cripple CTU operations. On the other hand, the Day 5 attack was partially stopped, CTU managed to seal some areas and secure key staff, Ostroff was ultimately killed in the process, but not without partially crippling CTU operations. Thief12 (talk) 22:36, January 23, 2017 (UTC) :: But with the Day 2 bombing, staff were alerted to it before it happened, and an evacuation began which saved a large number of staff. We never are given what percentage of staff were killed in the Day 2 bombing, but we are told the numbers in each case (and the day 5 gassing killed almost twice as many as the day 2 bombing). The perpetrators of the Day 2 bombing were also killed (the fact it happened after didn't change the outcome of the attack), and CTU operations were only partially crippled in both cases (both times CTU went on to save the day as per usual!)--Acer4666 (Talk) 22:40, January 23, 2017 (UTC) ::: I don't have the events of Day 2 as clear as I have the ones in Day 5, so I suppose you're right. I didn't remember the evacuation, but I do seem to remember that the bomb went off just as Tony was helping Paula run out or something like that. Should we settle for both "Partially successful"? Thief12 (talk) 01:18, January 24, 2017 (UTC) Jack's actions on Day 8 Curious what you all think about including Jack's Day 8 revenge spree on this list. Killing the foreign minister of another country and later attempting to assassinate that same country's president kinda sound like terrorism to me. Like if any other character did those things we probably would have listed them here already. 02:06, July 21, 2019 (UTC) :Either it fits the definition or it doesn't. Jack being the main character shouldn't make a difference. OneWeirdDude (talk) 04:30, July 21, 2019 (UTC) ::Don't forget Mikhail Novakovich was one of the masterminds behind the deaths of Omar Hassan and Renee Walker, the latter's death that deeply affected Jack and leading his campaign of vigilante revenge against the Russian government officials responsible. So that shouldn't make a difference also. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:44, July 21, 2019 (UTC)